Woman to play $80,000 per illegal download = nearly 2 mil

Originally posted by chithappens
I still can't see why it is in anyway fair to charge that much for this.

Originally posted by The Scribe
$80,000 for each song is so ludicrous. An entire CD is much less than that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
$80000 a song? That's about 80,000 times what the music was apparently worth anyway.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, I know stuff works differently in America than it does in Canada, but how did they possibly come up with the figure of 80 000 a song?

Like, I'm a pretty big file sharer, and I don't think there are any individual songs that I have distributed enough to consider it a loss of more than $100 (and thats being generous) to any record company.

Like, obviously the laws are outdated, but do the courts really just get to invent punishment like that?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet it's an unfair and totally bullshit example, smelling of corruption, since the music industry has billions on it's side.

If someone steals $100.00 worth of clothing, no Judge or Jury will penalize them with paying back $8 million in damages. There is no precedent for this, wait, now there is.

The fine should fit the crime, simple as that. She stole $24.00 dollars worth of goods, that's not even a felony.

The judgment is a combination of actual damages, i.e. the quantifiable monetary losses of the copyright holder; and statutory damages, which may be up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement.

Originally posted by The Scribe
Will this happen to people who download comics, books, and so on?
Or, is this just for whiny musicians?

Anyone who unlawfully appropriates literary; musical; dramatic; choreographic and pantomime; graphic, pictorial, and sculptural; audiovisual and motion picture; sound recording; and architectural works may be liable for copyright infringement.

Originally posted by chomperx9
what i dont understand if its ilegal to do file sharing or download free songs videos then how the hell do those sites still stay open. they should get on the asses 1st of the people who keep those sites running. not the downloaders. if theres no site to download them then theres no downloaders.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's no real "upload", since it's usually peer-to-peer. In essence, if you're sharing your music, I link up to your computer via a 3rd party software (eg torrents, orginal napster) and download directly from your computer (and others, in many cases, if it's a wide share).

Penalizing those 3rd party companies is a no go, as they're not necessaily responsible with what people are sharing, I believe they also have disclaimers when you use their services.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The judgment is a combination of actual damages, i.e. the quantifiable monetary losses of the copyright holder; and statutory damages, which may be up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement.

Doesn't follow, as there isn't really a precedent and claiming "quantifible" here is all but arbitrary.

If the songs are being sold for $0.99 cents each, the jury/judge is assuming she would be [illegally] handing them off directly to 80k other people online and making her directly responsible for each offense with that $80k fine, which is unprovable and highly improbable.

Edit: It'd be similar to, if you permanently crippled me with your car where I couldn't work ever again, then I sued you for $100 million dollars, because it's possible [though highly improbable] that I could have made that much before I retired or died.

Though fortunately for you, there are precedents and their is legal settings for how much each body part costs, you'd be surprised how little a spine goes for.

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't follow, as there isn't really a precedent and claiming "quantifible" here is all but arbitrary.

If the songs are being sold for $0.99 cents each, the jury/judge is assuming she would be [illegally] handing them off directly to 80k other people online and making her directly responsible for each offense with that $80k fine, which is unprovable and highly improbable.

Exactly. First off, I've never seen evidence of how they "find" the people doing this. I think it would be a fair assumption that she downloaded more than 24 songs. Most P2P system allow you to see all the files a user will share but that doesn't mean you can find out where they are.

At my college, they would charge people $ 5,000 for a select amount of downloads if they agreed to some sort of plea., but that is also an outrageous number.

An entire album is normally worth $15 today. There is no fair reason that any corporation should be able to charge someone hundreds of times beyond that amount even if they did steal it. As mentioned earlier, someone who robs a store might have to pay back for the amount stolen, but they don't charge percentages over that. I understand media can be replicated easily, but that still doesn't condone charging someone an amount that obviously could not be paid by this woman or her future generations.

how much don they go for? 😕

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
Not all musicians are rich like that

Indeed. You gotta be in it for the love of it. Big gigs can be few and far between (Ive not been too active, myself of late) and you wanna make that money count, of course, but the reality always seems to be no matter your paycheck, someone is always there to make off of what you do, often at your detriment. Usually the record company if someone is signed, and it goes beyond renumeration with these folk.

So it garners little sympathy when those greedy people get hit for it, among many. But the artist seems to take a hit for it too.

No excusing piracy, per say, but I agree that each case should be proportional.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
how much don they go for? 😕

When my mother was injured at work 15+ years ago, her lawyer had the spread-sheet out, iirc, I think 'unrepairable spinal damage' was around $50k. This is of cource a base and circumstances can cahnage it, but $50k for a spine? Doesn't sound like a logical base, especially when some woman is getting taken anally sans lube for 24 songs.

If you earch online for "loss of use", and maybe throw in the search 'legal', 'body parts', 'workers comp', you should find something. It does vary from state to state, but I don't think by large margins.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth

No excusing piracy, per say, but I agree that each case should be proportional.

That's my view. She broke the law and got caught, so she should pay, but this isn't fair.

Originally posted by Robtard
When my mother was injured at work 15+ years ago, her lawyer had the spread-sheet out, iirc, I think 'unrepairable spinal damage' was around $50k. This is of cource a base and circumstances can cahnage it, but $50k for a spine? Doesn't sound like a logical base, especially when some woman is getting taken anally sans lube for 24 songs.

If you earch online for "loss of use", and maybe throw in the search 'legal', 'body parts', 'workers comp', you should find something. It does vary from state to state, but I don't think by large margins.

Dude that fu**ing sucks.

I dont know how those people sleep at night.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Dude that fu**ing sucks.

I dont know how those people sleep at night.

usually with their eyes close and lying down. 😉

Aint that the sad truth...

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You gotta be in it for the love of it.

People just don't get that any more. It's all about money and material gain. So, I don't care and I encourage you to do as you please. 😉

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
usually with their eyes close and lying down. 😉

In their jail cell for ripping people off. 😄

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The judgment is a combination of actual damages, i.e. the quantifiable monetary losses of the copyright holder; and statutory damages, which may be up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement.

Yes, but again I do not care.

No one says anything about book or comic book piracy.

It's only about music and movies.

The technology is available to do these things and they thought
people were not going to use that to their advantage?

How naive these "elite" fools are. 😄 😱

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't follow, as there isn't really a precedent and claiming "quantifible" here is all but arbitrary.

If the songs are being sold for $0.99 cents each, the jury/judge is assuming she would be [illegally] handing them off directly to 80k other people online and making her directly responsible for each offense with that $80k fine, which is unprovable and highly improbable.

Edit: It'd be similar to, if you permanently crippled me with your car where I couldn't work ever again, then I sued you for $100 million dollars, because it's possible [though highly improbable] that I could have made that much before I retired or died.

Though fortunately for you, there are precedents and their is legal settings for how much each body part costs, you'd be surprised how little a spine goes for.

If the woman was found to be liable for 24 instances of copyright infringement, and the market value of each work is .99¢, then the actual damages, or quantifiable monetary losses, is $23.76.

However, she is also liable for statutory damages up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement; in this case, a maximum of $3,600,000.

we're not saying that the jury didn't apply the law, jus that the law as applied in this case is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's no real "upload", since it's usually peer-to-peer. In essence, if you're sharing your music, I link up to your computer via a 3rd party software (eg torrents, orginal napster) and download directly from your computer (and others, in many cases, if it's a wide share).

Partially true.

There is not host SAN to the that distributor uploads to.

However, the uploading occurs on the distributor's end. They are considered the ad hoc server. The download occurs on the downloader's side.

So, yes, there are uploaders and downloaders in the real sense of those terms...just in a P2P environment, the client-server relationship is very dynamic...as each computer in the P2P network is both.

Now, about this thread.

Stupid stupid stupid music industry. Why can't the Muslim extremists focus on the RIAA and the MPAA...they are obviously the real devils.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the woman was found to be liable for 24 instances of copyright infringement, and the market value of each work is .99¢, then the actual damages, or quantifiable monetary losses, is $23.76.

However, she is [b]also liable for statutory damages up to $150,000 for each instance of infringement; in this case, a maximum of $3,600,000. [/B]

Which they hit her with about 50% of the max, which is still bullshit, considering it's a bullshit law, since it allows for a much greater pay-out per actual lose to the infringed upon. I'm not arguing that she's innocent, just that the fine doesn't fit the crime.

Might as well fine someone $50k, if they steal $20.00 Gap shirt.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Partially true.

There is not host SAN to the that distributor uploads to.

However, the uploading occurs on the distributor's end. They are considered the ad hoc server. The download occurs on the downloader's side.

So, yes, there are uploaders and downloaders in the real sense of those terms...just in a P2P environment, the client-server relationship is very dynamic...as each computer in the P2P network is both.

You basically said what I said, just used correct terminology.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Partially true.

There is not host SAN to the that distributor uploads to.

However, the uploading occurs on the distributor's end. They are considered the ad hoc server. The download occurs on the downloader's side.

So, yes, there are uploaders and downloaders in the real sense of those terms...just in a P2P environment, the client-server relationship is very dynamic...as each computer in the P2P network is both.

Regardless, the software only facilitates the transfer of files, it does not provide a proprietary environment for the transfer to take place, so the software developer is not vicariously infringing any copyrighted works.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which they hit her with about 50% of the max, which is still bullshit, considering it's a bullshit law, since it allows for a much greater pay-out per actual lose to the infringed upon. I'm not arguing that she's innocent, just that the fine doesn't fit the crime.

Might as well fine someone $50k, if they steal $20.00 Gap shirt.

Technically, the punishment does fit the crime . . . as prescribed by law; it is simply not proportional to the crime.

Originally posted by Robtard
You basically said what I said, just used correct terminology.

In your defense, you put "upload" in quotes. But I figured I'd make it clear before some idiot thought that P2P wasn't uploading.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Regardless, the software only facilitates the transfer of files, it does not provide a proprietary environment for the transfer to take place, so the software developer is not vicariously infringing any copyrighted works.

The "proprietary" environment IS the P2P software being used and the computers the data is transferring over. i.e. Azerus Vuze, Bittorrent, etc.

But you are correct. It is the user of the software that is breaking the law. However, I don't think anyone was arguing that it's the software companies' fault for their software being used for illegal actions.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Technically, the punishment does fit the crime . . . as prescribed by law; it is simply not proportional to the crime.

This hits the nail right on the head.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[B

Technically, the punishment does fit the crime . . . as prescribed by law; it is simply not proportional to the crime. [/B]

or you could say that the punishment, prescribed by law, does not fit the crime, ie. it's out of proportion with the damage done.

Originally posted by docb77
or you could say that the punishment, prescribed by law, does not fit the crime, ie. it's out of proportion with the damage done.

Also true.